In a survey for the Prince William Family Alliance, Cathy Crabill refused to oppose bank bailouts.

You read that right, the woman who would like us all to believe that Rob Wittman isn’t conservative enough answered thusly on the PWFA survey (her elaboration is in red; h/t to Tim Watson, who emailed this to me):

Don’t know the ramifications? Seriously? This woman wants to represent me in Congress?

True defenders of limited government ripped the 2008 bank bailout (a.k.a. TARP) from the start. We knew it would fail to solve the problem, while greatly improving the power of the federal government in our economy.

Yet almost two years after it happened, Cathy Crabill can’t bring herself to oppose this.

Well, Rob Wittman could. He understood the ramifications and opposed it not once, but twice.

If you, like me, are in the 1st District, remember this: Cathy Crabill, the supposed champion of limited government, does not oppose bank bailouts. Only one candidate on the ballot on June 8 opposes bank bailouts – Rob Wittman.

Please remember this the next time Ms. Crabill or any of her supporters claim that Congressman Wittman isn’t conservative enough, and please vote for the only candidate who opposes bailouts – Rob Wittman.

What is funny is that the poster misses such an obvious irony. How did Congressman Robert J. ”Rob” Wittman answer to that question? He didn’t (See here.). Wittman did not respond at all to the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance‘s candidate survey. Out of the four congressional candidates invited to take part, only Wittman refused. Yet Wittman’s supporters think it important to nitpick one of Catherine T. Crabill‘s responses to a 25-question survey — on a question she responded as undecided.

How are we to take Wittman’s refusal to take part in the survey? Here are some options. Wittman is:

Unless Wittman chooses to tell us, we will not know why he ducked the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance‘s candidate survey. So all voters in the 1st Congressional District can do is make the best of the information they have, Crabill’s responses. Based upon the advice of an old Chinese proverb, voters may wish to carefully consider which of the candidates is most forthcoming with their views.

I believe that is the point. We want to know if a candidate believes something that should get them in trouble.

The Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance is a fairly well-known and respected Conservative organization. Check out its website. Many of our local politicians think it worth their time to help the organization (see here).

PWMFA may be well-known in your neck of the woods, but I never heard of it before Tim sent Crabill’s answers to me (additionally, Manassas isn’t even in the 1st).

It would be entirely unreasonable of me to expect Congressman Wittman and his staff to know everyone and everything. However, I suspect he knows his congressional district includes a portion of Prince William County. Therefore, consider that it is the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance, and part of the 1st Congressional District is in Prince William County.

Also note that Wittman did get a letter, and both you Tim Watson saw fit to cite the results of the PWMFA candidate survey in your blog posts.

The fact remains that they were 25 questions on the survey, not just one. You only saw fit to criticize the answer to one question. What that suggests is that you liked 96 percent of Crabill’s answers. Gosh, Ronald Reagan was happy with any Republican who only agreed with him 80 percent of the time.

Since Wittman did not respond at all to the survey, where do we stand with him? You are a supporter. Has Wittman responded to a similar survey from an organization in your neck of the woods?

I focused on that one question because it was the most egregious. There were a few on foreign policy that worried me, too.

Then there’s the part where she said the Feds were responsible for the OKC bombing (which wasn’t on the questionnaire). Yikes!

More to the point, once again, Wittman has a record. I know his views because I have seen his votes. Some I don’t like (the farm bill, for example), but many more I do (TARP and the Obama nonsense) – and I should note TARP was a much tougher vote because he stood against his own president to oppose it.

D.J. McGuire – I have not endorsed either Crabill or Wittman. I don’t know enough about either candidate. What I am doing is pointing out that it is a bit silly to punish Crabill for responding to candidate survey that Wittman chose to ignore. Wittman’s silence is at least as damning as Crabill’s answers.

If we want the people we elect to be up front with us, then we cannot nitpick everything they say. If we do, then we will end up electing “clever” men good only for mouthing empty platitudes. In fact, if the current occupant in the White House is any indication, I fear we have already reached that point.

D.J. McGuire – If you want to promote Wittman based upon his record, that is fine with me. What I object to is a negative campaign that punishes candidates for being honest with us, particularly when their opponents ignore the same request for information.

Look again at your post and the hysteria over one question in 25. Then ask yourself this question. What would you prefer, being known for liking the candidates you support or fearing the candidates you are against?

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.